It has no place in schools. We learn about theories and facts in school, not fairy tales. For all intensive purposes, to the general population, "religion" is a fairy tale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying there is no God, period, or trying to bag on religion, but it has no place in school. No place at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So religion is a fairy tale? We actually have PROOF of things happening from relgion. I really do find that offensive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a laugh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your logic path would be a laugh, if it existed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I edited it. :wink:

All the artifacts relating to Christianity were discovered to be made by a team of experts to sell as phonies for very expensive prices to museums.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice edit. A fabrication of facts, unless you can cite a source that lists every Christian artifact and proof that they were made by a team of experts.

So whats your argument against the Dead sea scrolls which have been carbon dated to the correct time.

I think we can all agree that preaching a religion is a lot different than learning about one. I think schools should definitely teach the history and the basic premise of each religion but not try and spread it to other subjects. Nothing is worse than being ignorant of the things you hate.

As stated before, I approve of the learning/understanding of religions, but don't advocate the preaching of it. We have a philosophy/comparative religions class at my school, which pretty much gives enough information on religions to take away from many misconceptions/stereotypes of them. Also, in my environmental science class, we learn about evolution and such (despite the controversy over it).

 

 

 

It's beneficial because in my opinion, in doing so people gain a more objective view of these things and overall become more informed of society and people around them. So yeah, I think it's a pretty good idea.

It has NO place in schools other than to be tought in a neutral manner in a designated "Religion Education" class one lesson a week at the most. Religion has NO place in any other lessons especially not in science classes where it is destroying education. Religious symbols and dress also has no place in schools, I find it offensive seeing religious symbols all over the place. Lastly faith schools should be banned, or at the very least recieve no public funding. I despise the idea that my tax money is being taken away from schools in order to furthar the brainwashing of children. Segregation only increases racial hatred too so if faith schools really want to exist them they should have to fun themselves either by donations from people or by charging parents for places.

weve got a ^"religious education" class. teaching about every (well the big ones) religions in grades 5 to 10. 11 to 13 focused on whatever religion you are. and 1 to 4 simply bible and stories.

weve got a ^"religious education" class. teaching about every (well the big ones) religions in grades 5 to 10. 11 to 13 focused on whatever religion you are. and 1 to 4 simply bible and stories.

I dont think you shoudl teach children religion until they are a bit older. When at young ages children have a very high tendancy to belive everything they are tought and that includes Bible stories. Religion education should only be for 11+ and should be based on all the major religion including non-religion based philosophies not just the one that you follow or the one your teacher belives.

and should be based on all the major religion including non-religion based philosophies not just the one that you follow or the one your teacher belives

 

 

 

thats what it is. the teachers i had so far were all good ones. accepted/respected your opinion. (different with some classmates... :roll: )

 

 

 

anyway, in my opinion that class shouldve ended at grade 10 or 11.

Basically, there should be a "they believe in God" rather than a "you/we believe in God" sort of thing.

 

weve got a ^"religious education" class. teaching about every (well the big ones) religions in grades 5 to 10. 11 to 13 focused on whatever religion you are. and 1 to 4 simply bible and stories.

I dont think you shoudl teach children religion until they are a bit older. When at young ages children have a very high tendancy to belive everything they are tought and that includes Bible stories. Religion education should only be for 11+ and should be based on all the major religion including non-religion based philosophies not just the one that you follow or the one your teacher belives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, heaven forbid children have any sort of belief system. That's totally bad for them.

Yes, heaven forbid children have any sort of belief system. That's totally bad for them.

No I just think it should wait until they are old enough and mature enough to understand and make thier own decisions and beliefs not whatever thier parents or teacher belives. School isnt for singing up people to church its for learning and education.

...learning and education, also about religions

 

We've got a ^"religious education" class. teaching about every (well the big ones) religions in grades 5 to 10. 11 to 13 focused on whatever religion you are. and 1 to 4 simply bible and stories.

I don't think you should teach children religion until they are a bit older. When at young ages children have a very high tendency to believe everything they are taught and that includes Bible stories. Religion education should only be for 11+ and should be based on all the major religion including non-religion based philosophies not just the one that you follow or the one your teacher believes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, that's one thing I don't like about religion. It brainwashes kids at a young age.

Learning about religion: Learning about the varrious religious systems, what their beleif is, where it started, ect. ect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preaching about religion: Generaly all about one religion, focus's on the religious aspect and not historical aspect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm all for learning about it, as it is usualy done in a history class of some sort. Note, that learning about a religion is simply knowing about it.

Of course religion has a place in schools.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Philosophy/World Religions: Students ought to be given an overview of the world's major belief systems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

History: Understanding a culture's religion and philosophy is vital to accurately understand a culture. For example, if you study the abolitionist movement in America, but leave out the influence of the Second Great Awakening on anti-slavery beliefs, then you miss a large part of the picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature: In order to understand what a book means, you have to understand the context - the author's life, culture, religion, surrounding historical events, and such. Also, many scriptures ought to be read for literary value. I firmly believe the Bible should be required reading in every ancient literature class, just as Plato and Homer ought to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Art: Once again, context. Whether a class is studying Midieval, Renaissance, Romantic, or Modern art, understanding the surrounding belief systems is crucial to understanding both the movements and individual works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's plenty of examples where understanding religion is a vital part of a subject's context, and therefore ought to be taught.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as teaching children about religion at a young age, I find it ridiculous to say that doing so is wrong. Unless you hide your child from all forms of education, including communication, his thought patterns are going to be based on some kind of unproven assumptions. Teaching your child that he can rely only on his own reason and observation is instilling an unproven belief system just as much as teaching him that the Bible is God's infallible Word.

 

 

 

As a side note, the Supreme Court, in Torcaso v. Watkins, acknowledged Secular Humanism as a religion, and upheld this view in many other cases, such as Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia. Yet Secular Humanism is practically the established religion of American public schools. "I despise the idea that my" family's tax money is going "to furthar the brainwashing of children" into a religion with which I disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Supreme Court did not define Secular Humanism as a religion. That was merely the footnote/personal opinion of one of the judges. Opposing the use of Reason in schools is not the same as opposing religion in schools. Reason allows students to evaluate different views. Religion does not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as teaching children about religion at a young age, I find it ridiculous to say that doing so is wrong. Unless you hide your child from all forms of education, including communication, his thought patterns are going to be based on some kind of unproven assumptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Children should not be taught that they can "only" rely on their own reason. They should be taught that there is more than one belief system in the world and be given the opportunity to choose for themselves as they mature mentally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teaching your child that he can rely only on his own reason and observation is instilling an unproven belief system just as much as teaching him that the Bible is God's infallible Word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or that [insert different religious text here] is [insert God name here]'s infallible word. There is nothing to prove that the Bible is right, or the Quran is right, or the Book of Mormon is right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teaching children to rely on reason is the only system that is not unproven. It allows them to consider all the different religions and decide whether they need the emotional support provided by religion and, if so, which one they would like to attach themselves to.

 

 

 

 

As a side note, the Supreme Court, in Torcaso v. Watkins, acknowledged Secular Humanism as a religion, and upheld this view in many other cases, such as Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia. Yet Secular Humanism is practically the established religion of American public schools. "I despise the idea that my" family's tax money is going "to furthar the brainwashing of children" into a religion with which I disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Supreme Court did not define Secular Humanism as a religion. That was merely the footnote/personal opinion of one of the judges. Opposing the use of Reason in schools is not the same as opposing religion in schools. Reason allows students to evaluate different views. Religion does not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which I picked up on through further research after making my post, which I why I removed that paragraph already. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as teaching children about religion at a young age, I find it ridiculous to say that doing so is wrong. Unless you hide your child from all forms of education, including communication, his thought patterns are going to be based on some kind of unproven assumptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Children should not be taught that they can "only" rely on their own reason. They should be taught that there is more than one belief system in the world and be given the opportunity to choose for themselves as they mature mentally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree. Childhood is a very important time, and I believe that it's an important time for parents to their children religion, just as it's an important time to teach the child manners, responsibility, and love.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teaching your child that he can rely only on his own reason and observation is instilling an unproven belief system just as much as teaching him that the Bible is God's infallible Word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or that [insert different religious text here] is [insert God name here]'s infallible word. There is nothing to prove that the Bible is right, or the Quran is right, or the Book of Mormon is right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teaching children to rely on reason is the only system that is not unproven. It allows them to consider all the different religions and decide whether they need the emotional support provided by religion and, if so, which one they would like to attach themselves to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do I know I can rely on my own reason? Because I reason that it's reliable. It's circular logic; you cannot prove the reliability of reason without using reason.

I think learning about different religions (religious education, if you like) has somewhat of a place in schools, but it should be very closely observed to be unbiased.

 

 

 

intelligent design/creationism is NOT science, should NEVER be tought as such, if anything this should be taught in RE as thats what it is.. a religious view, which IMHO was made up to try and provide a pseudo-scientific explanation which is close to evolutionary theory, but attracts people to a religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

religion has a place in society, but only as a social base and possibly for teaching morals, but the way in which it does these is poor, so i think it SHOULDNT really have place in society, but has some use. it can also cause "evil", however.

When it comes to history I can understand it. It pops up alot in Art History, especially a few years ago in the Renaissance and Baroque periods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, in that case it's understandable.

I think religon is fine in schools. I go to a catholic school where we have religion class and mass. I have observed that people are more behaved in my school then the kids that go to public schools that don't teach religon.

 

 

 

As far as teaching children about religion at a young age, I find it ridiculous to say that doing so is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In that case you must make sure you teach it the right way. I've been raised in a very, very christian environment, and by age 7 I could tell I was being brainwashed by all the stories I heard from other kids and adults about "how you are going to hell if you do this and that". Now that I think of it, it sounded like any other cult based on intimidation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just laughed at them because their lives were so restricted at such a young age. If they refused to go to church or read the Bible, some compassionate guy in the heaven would kick the hell out of them after they died. Ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps it would be better to approach children with religion in a way that emphasises it's real core principles such as love and tolerance rather than trying to submit them to some god's authority and unproven ideas based on scaring them and giving them nightmares.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My childhood friend did have very bad nightmares because his parents and teachers were constantly talking to him about hell and how it could scorch him for an eternity if he disobeyed. He later started arguing with his devout parents about it, I really doubt he will raise his children religiously.

I'm all for religion being a major part of faith schools, as long as such schools are privately funded. I actively want people who have the strongest religious views to have lots of their time in education spent being taught about all sorts of religious issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with state schools teaching children that any one particular religion is right, but faith schools, I say, can do what they want: people who send their children to a faith school are likely to have told their children all about their religion anyway.

Is Intellegent Design\Creationalism a verifiable science?

 

 

 

Struggling to understand what you mean but Yes!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Religion has a place in society at all?

 

 

 

If it makes you stronger... but I tend to see it as a waste of time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arguments for\against Religion in schools :-k

 

 

 

I think the Facts should be taught, but not the religion, it's up to the kids to decide what they want to believe in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Though in my RS school lessons, we rarely study religion. It's pretty much an excuse for other 'more interesting' subjects. ie psychology, philosophy, world history, decisions, et cetera. We often never get classwork but have long debates instead.

 

 

 

How do I know I can rely on my own reason? Because I reason that it's reliable. It's circular logic; you cannot prove the reliability of reason without using reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's like saying math is circular logic because you can't prove math without using math. Reason is wider and more flexible than religion.